Search form

Featured Topics

Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

You are here

Service Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 556 and Navy Exchange, Pearl, United States Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

[ v02 p906 ] 02:0906(112)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:

2 FLRA No. 112
MR. LAURENCE R. AH NEE, SR.
PRESIDENT, LOCAL 556
SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO
666 KOHOU STREET, ROOM 201
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96817
RE: SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 556 AND
NAVY EXCHANGE, PEARL, UNITED
STATES NAVAL BASE, PEARL HARBOR,
HAWAII, Case No. 0-NG-187
DEAR MR. AH NEE:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE ACTIVITY AND THE UNION, THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT A UNION PROPOSAL
CONCERNING REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE WAS INCONSISTENT WITH A REGULATION ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (AGENCY) AND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE PROPOSAL. YOUR PETITION ON
BEHALF OF THE UNION SEEKS A DETERMINATION FROM THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 7117(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.11 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES OF
PROCEDURE, AS TO WHETHER A COMPELLING NEED EXISTS FOR THE AGENCY
REGULATION IN QUESTION. IN ITS STATEMENT FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY IN
THE CASE, THE AGENCY WITHDREW THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE ACTIVITY. IN
YOUR RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT, HOWEVER, YOU ASSERT THAT THE
AUTHORITY "SHOULD ISSUE A DECISION IN ALL CASES INVOLVING COMPELLING
NEED" AND REQUEST "THAT A DECISION (ON THE COMPELLING NEED QUESTION) BE
ISSUED IN THE INSTANT CASE DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE (A)GENCY'S
ALLEGATION."
SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S
PROPOSAL, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IN THIS
CASE IS WITHIN THE PARTIES' DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE. THE
DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL THEREFORE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT.
FURTHER, YOUR REQUEST THAT THE AUTHORITY RESOLVE ANY ISSUE RAISED BY
THE ACTIVITY'S INITIAL ALLEGATION CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY
OPINION WHICH IS PRECLUDED BY SECTION 2429.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES.
ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
FOR THE AUTHORITY
SINCERELY,
SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CC: E. F. ORMSBEE
NAVY
D. H. GREEN
DOD